Comments

Did Harry Reid comment on the billionaire George Soros trying to buy our democracy or how about billionaire Opperman’s or how about these billionaire democrat donors Charles W. Ergen, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner, Steven Spielberg, S. Daniel Abraham, Bernard L. Schwartz, Ron Burkle, David Geffen, etc. No? I suspectt Harry is only interested in government censorship of one side of the argument.

Of course Davidg@#1 means “democrat” instead of Democratic or democratic, depending which group/s being referenced. It is a reliable indicator of someone interacting with right-wing talk shows and party line talking heads.

It is also entirely predictable that t his reflexive response to accusation is to immediately respond with the standard ‘both sides do it’ dodge.

It overlooks the simple fact that only one side so massively invests in multilevel interlocking schemes to buy influence and systematically undermine the democratic process.

Yes, many other people participate in the democratic process. I sometime s contribute a few dollars. My donations and contributions are simple and small. I do not financially area bomb the legislators with Machiavellian zeal. I do not offer money after they leave office for deeds done in office. I do not set up AstroTurf organizations to mimic and distort the actual will of the people.

The difference between the Kochs and “donors Charles W. Ergen, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner, Steven Spielberg, S. Daniel Abraham, Bernard L. Schwartz, Ron Burkle, David Geffen” is a matter of scale, intensity, manipulation at multiple levels at once, a tendency to use false-flag populism, and a willingness to take hostages and inflict punishment upon any who do not cooperate.

But here again, when Davidg used the term “democrat” as implied insult to democratic politicians, it was clear he did does not care a whit for the truth. The intent was to get the accusation of buying the democratic process out quickly enough to blunt the accusations of buying the democratic process.

I agree with Davidg about the upper case. I don’t live in the US and I’m not an American citizen, so I find it natural to distinguish between being a democrat and being a Democrat. Davidg is also right when he says that the Koch brothers aren’t the only ones who use and launder large amounts of money to influence political decisions in ways that benefit themselves. Jane Mayer has written an article on Art Pope’s successful attempt to buy a favorable North Carolina legislature.

On the other hand I think that equating what the Kochs do with what persons like Buffet and Soros do is misleading. Buffet’s tax proposal has been out in the open and would benefit society rather than his own financial status. Soros too has been open about his political involvement, and a major part of his giving has been to further the development of democracy.

I wonder if Davidg would favor
1. Full disclosure of political donations, and
2. Public financing of political campaigns.

Or is his comment just an obfuscation to ensure the influence of sleazy money in American politics.

My use of the term Democrat is actually proper and older than them use of the term Demoratic to identify one how is or gives to the Democrat party. There really was no intended slight in using the term but I find the more recent shift to the term Democratic as an adjective to describe Democrats is more easily confused with the more generic term for all democracies.

As for egregious funding just to take George sorros as an example, he gave just over 2.3 million to Democrats in the last election cycle, he also funds moveon.org, thinkprogress and he helped astro-turf the occupy movement (no recent polical movement was more astro-turfed than that).

How many politicians from both parties are make far more post politics than the ever made as politicians. In almost every case it isn’t because they possess skills that people who have been working in those industries all of their lives don’t already posses.

Companies like Crowds on demand (crowdsondemand.com) are dedicated to astro turfing when Unions aren’t available (they do tend to be mostly on the left).

Burying your head in the sand and saying “its only the other guy” just makes you seem less informed. Worse knee jerk accepting what Harry Reid says as some how credible without considering his hard partisan perspective seems foolish.

To answer the questions from Philip,
1) I am absolutely in favor of full disclosure of all political donations, of course that would mean full disclosure for groups like Pro Family groups, Oranizing for Action, and some would say this website since we are having a public political discussion (at some point it gets a little too invasive).

2) I’m generally not in favor of public financing of campaigns because there is some point were you must control who gets the public funding and I don’t like he idea of government sanctioning who gets money to run. They also usually include rules which exclude private speech (you can’t put a political sign in your yard with private money, etc)

Organizing for Action, by the way was reformed from Organizing for America in order to allow contributions to be both unlimited and undisclosed now that the president is no longer running for office. I wonder why they need to get rid of the limits now?

“t I find the more recent shift to the term Democratic as an adjective to describe Democrats is more easily confused with the more generic term for all democracies.”

Well, now you know that it is a dog whistle of Tea Partiers and Libertarians!

“George sorros as an example, he gave just over 2.3 million to Democrats in the last election cycle, he also funds moveon.org, thinkprogress and he helped astro-turf the occupy movement (no recent polical movement was more astro-turfed than that).”

Good for him. With citizens united we need that kind of commitment to keep the process Democratic.

“Unions aren’t available (they do tend to be mostly on the left).”

Unions tend to be on “the left” because it is the left, not the right, that respects workers and workers rights. That’s pretty much always been true. We expect unions to look out for the workers, and the left looks out for workers, while the right mainly looks out for the 1%. We’re lucky that some of those 1%ers (or maybe 5%ers?) are also progressives, or we’d be in real trouble!

“Burying your head in the sand and saying “its only the other guy” just makes you seem less informed.”

No one said that. You, however, said that the Koch’s are OK because “it’s also the other guy.” That is not my perspective at all, and again, you’ve missed the point.

By Other Blog Is…: The X Blog

According to a source cited by NPR the Ferguson Police Department … violated the Constitution when it policed to raise money and with a racial bias toward African-Americans, according to a law enforcement official familiar with the report. The investigation, the source says, concluded that blacks were disproportionately targeted by the police and the justice […]

“Please Don’t Paint Our Planet Pink!: A Story for Children and their Adults” is a new children’s book by Gregg Kleiner about global warming. The idea is simple. Imagine if you could see CO2? In the book, it is imagined to be pink. The imagining takes the form of a quirky father, one imagines him […]

“You can believe the United States Navy or you can believe the Senator with the snowball.” “You can believe the Pope or you can believe the Senator with the snowball.” “We can believe [great American corporations] or we can believe the Senator with the snowball.” “You can believe every single major American scientific society, or […]